Governor Cuomo: America's Scummiest Leader

Unfortunately it required revelations of toxic sexual misconduct from eight women to finally expose New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as a noxious, political charlatan. The charges expunged the fasctitoiusly nurtured veneer maintained by America's most pompous, narcissistic state leader. 

The cheeky governor brushed aside the allegations with repugnant claims his casual flirtations were misinterpreted by the women.  This is the same lout who once clamored that every woman's assertion of sexual misconduct deserved to be believed.  Cuomo has evolved from #MeToo to #MisogynistInChief.

As a chorus of women echoed allegations, Cuomo issued a baneful statement saying he "teased people about their personal lives, their relationships, about getting married or not married," but didn't mean to offend anyone.  He is a member of the Party of Woke.  This is cloddish Neanderthal behavior.

Sources told The New York Times that Cuomo had the hutzpah to author a letter for his inner circle to distribute to former staffers aimed at tarnishing the credibility of one of his chief accusers.  The maneuver speaks to the character of a ruthless, bullying politician.   

The governor counted on a coddling media to allow him to escape unscathed.  Instead the news cheerleaders were forced by the allegations to chisel the governor's facade.  Many insiders, including the duplicitous media, had known for years about Cuomo's peccadilloes. 

Media coverage of the sexual allegations dwarfed previous press reporting on the extent of his deadly nursing home scandal.  The fawning media was determined to downplay the nursing home disaster to aid the governor's attempt to dodge responsibility, but the misconduct charges opened Pandora's box.  

Cuomo should have been ousted months ago after his disastrous directive to ship COVID patients into the state's nursing homes, a decision that led to deaths of 14,500 elderly residents. As a result of the imbecilic decision, 37% of all Coronavirus fatalities in New York state occurred in  nursing homes.

During the darkest days of the scourge, Cuomo spent most of his time puffing up his image for managing the health crisis. He authored a media-acclaimed book, "American Crisis: Leadership Lessons During the COVID-19 Pandemic." He presented himself as New York's savior in the best-seller.

In November, that bastion of progressive sycophancy, the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, awarded Cuomo an Emmy "in recognition of his leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic and his masterful use of TV to inform and calm people around the world."

What a charade.  Cuomo's media performances were orchestrated to burnish his reputation while promoting his presidential ambitions. He yammered about how President Trump had failed the nation, while he, Cuomo, was a model of following science to implement life-saving, effective solutions. 

After the nursing home fiasco, how could any leader claim he was following science as Cuomo often bragged?  If Cuomo understood science, he would have made protecting the elderly, the most vulnerable to the virus, his top priority.  Instead he left them defenseless against an insidious virus.

Cuomo's state Health Department last March issued a pernicious advisory requiring nursing homes to accept "the expedited receipt of residents returning from packed hospitals "if the patients were deemed medically stable." The document blessed by Cuomo also directed the following:

"No resident shall be denied re-admission or admission to the (nursing home) solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19. (Nursing homes) are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or re-admission."

To make it clear, the governor not only forced nursing homes to accept COVID patients, but his health department's order forbade the facilities to even test other incoming patients for the virus.  This did not apply to hospitals, only to nursing homes.  It is an unconscionable act of a detached political emperor.    

His lethal mistake was unmasked when the New York State Attorney General Letitia James rocked Cuomo's political dynasty with a report faulting his administration for undercounting the Coronavirus deaths in nursing homes, suggesting a politically-motivated cover-up. 

Cuomo's top aide Melissa DeRosa admitted the state withheld nursing home data from the state legislature because the governor was worried about a possible federal Department of Justice investigation into how Team Cuomo dealt with the crisis. 

The New York Times, normally a reliable guardian of Cuomo's image, reported Cuomo and his team rewrote a report, removing the fact that more than 9,000 nursing home residents had died by June.  The Times found the state health department's data was approximately 50% higher than public figures 

While infected patients were whisked to nursing homes, the administration surely knew the facilities were ill-equipped to deal with protecting their own patients in the early stages of the outbreak. The attorney general's report tried to cover for Cuomo by blaming nursing homes for their unpreparedness. 

This heartless decision set the stage for an epidemiological disaster of epic proportions. 

As news of the catastrophe broke, Governor Cuomo created limited immunity provisions for health care professionals shielding them from the potential liability for their actions or omissions.  The immunity covers nursing home owners.  This is Cuomo at his sleaziest best.  

According to campaign finance records, Cuomo accepted at least $126,000 from the Greater New York Hospital Association, other industry groups and their lobbyists in the months prior to his decision to grant legal protections from lawsuits and criminal prosecutions.

The legal shelter was stuffed at the eleventh hour in the annual state budget bill.  Democrat Assemblyman Ron Kim made his feelings clear. "You can't put a toxic bill (amendment) like that in the budget without having full access to the governor's office," Kim pointed out.

At the time, New York media yawned.  Nothing to see here.

Throughout the COVID emergency, Cuomo bellyached about the need for aid, citing the overcrowding at New York hospitals.  President Trump dispatched the Mercy, a 1,000 bed floating Navy hospital, to New York Harbor.  The federal government also erected 1,000 beds in the Javits Convention Center.

After his badgering, the conceited Cuomo thumbed his nose at the assistance, while the bodies of dead COVID victims were piled into refrigerated trucks.  As far as can be determined, less than 100 patients ever set foot in either the Navy ship or the makeshift hospital at the convention center.  

Classic Cuomo.  Blame someone else for your mismanagement.  Then stick them with the bill.

Lockdown Andrew's measures to staunch the spread of the virus were among the most extreme of any state.  He virtually shutdown the state and shamed New Yorkers if they refused his regal dictates.  So how did that all turn out for New York?  Was the state safer under Cuomo's lockdown regime?

The data clearly illustrates Cuomo reigned over a stupendous failure. New York led all states in the number of fatalities per 100,000 population with 248.  By comparison, Texas fatalities were 156 per 100,000; Florida, 148; and California, 137.  Those three states are all larger than New York. 

New York also suffered the worst economic toll.  Pew Research Center estimates 126,00 New York residents fled the state between February of last year until December.  The state lost 1,058,000 jobs during the crisis, second only to California.  Texas and Florida lost half that many jobs.

A University of New Hampshire report on Gross Domestic Product, a measurement of economic activity, revealed that New York performance was far behind other states of similar size.  From the fourth quarter of 2019 to the third quarter of 2020, here are the GDP figures for four states:

• New York -6.1%
• California -3.7%
• Texas  -3.6%
• Florida -2.9%

In spite of his sorry performance, insolent Governor Cuomo almost broke both hands patting himself on the back in public without a hint of shame.  If you are wondering how Cuomo survived such ignominious failure, look no further than an ingratiating media not interested in facts.

Thanks to eight courageous women, and counting, the impudent governor's true character can no longer be hidden.  The fact the governor continues to swat away the allegations as just delusions by the accusers is testament to his pomposity.  If he were a Republican, he would be gone from office.

Faced with mounting pressure from fellow Democrats, Cuomo finally acquiesced and agreed to appoint an "independent" probe.  He named fellow Democrat state Attorney General James to head the investigation. She is hardly an independent public officer. Expect Cuomo to receive a wrist slap.

There is also open discussion of impeachment but Cuomo is a Democrat governor in a heavily partisan Democrat state.  He is likely to ride out that storm, too.  In New York, the Cuomo name is a golden calf to be worshiped by the political class.  Few dare to challenge the vengeful governor. 

That's a shame because Governor Andrew Cuomo should have been forced to resign months ago for the trail of bodies left in the wake of his political boosterism. Now the sexual harassment charges are an overriding reason to throw the bum out of office. Just do it, New York Democrats.  

Stimulus: More Pork Than A Jimmy Dean Sausage

A 5,593-page bill, cleverly disguised as COVID relief package, is officially the porkiest bill in Congressional history.  This nearly $2 trillion spending boondoggle comes on the heels of a $2.3 trillion pandemic assistance bill approved in December. That's $4 trillion in tax dollars in less than four months.

Early estimates are the spending spree will increase the nation's debt by $2 trillion over a decade.  The current national debt is a mind-numbing $27.4 trillion (as of March 13).  Since 2000, your federal government has added $25.4 trillion in debt.  That is a 1,150% increase in a little more than 20 years.

A review of the stimulus monstrosity reveals Congress stealthily inserted scores of non-Coronavirus items in the bill to keep Americans clueless.  The parasite media trumpeted the $1,400 stimulus checks, but glossed over the billions of dollars earmarked for special-interest, pork barrel projects.

National Public Radio (NPR) gushed: "Life Changing Stimulus Checks Go Out."  The Washington Post and USA Today deemed the stimulus a lifeline to a nation in an economic crisis. Yet government data confirms companies are hiring, unemployment is dipping and businesses are reopening.  

The bill, shrewdly named the American Rescue Plan Act, carries an official price tag of $1.9 trillion for what the drafters boast is a measure combining the "full resources of the federal government to protect the health and well-being of all Americans."  What a crock. This bill is a gusher for big government.

To start, those media-ballyhooed $1,400 stimulus checks represent a measly $413 billion in cash payments directly to Americans making less than $75,000.  The remaining $1.48 trillion of the budget-buster flows to virtually every government agency and a raft of progressive, liberal goodies.

If the Biden administration believes jobs are the top issue, then why so little of the $1.9 trillion went to Americans who are out-of-work? No matter how many times Biden's mouthpieces brand this a jobs bill, the piddling amount dedicated to payments to unemployed is a sign of duplicity. 

As part of its propaganda willingly echoed by the legacy media, the bills proponents championed the spending on vaccines, testing and other pandemic medical supplies. The actual dollar figure for these projects is $75 billion, a mere pittance of the $1.9 trillion. 

The lion's share of the fountain of money is being showered on a laundry list of non-Coronavirus earmarks.  

A revolting $350 billion is rained on blue-states and local governments, including a $42.2 billion bail out for California.  That is a gift from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to her home state. California is expected to end the fiscal year with a $10 billion surplus.  How can anyone justify this largess?

Feeding the federal agencies and departments in The Swamp was a priority for Democrats, who own this engorged spending orgy since not one single Republican voted for this big government wish-list. Here are a few examples:

• $9.5 billion for Department of Agriculture
• $1.886 billion for the Department of Commerce
• $1 billion for the Department of Justice
• $10.5 billion for the Department of Defense
• $295.15 million for the General Services Administration
• $45.9 billion for Homeland Security
• $2.04 billion for the Interior, Environment and related agencies
• $30.9 billion for the Department of Education
• $93.1 million for the Legislative Branch, including the Senate and House
• $31.1 billion for the Department of Transportation
• $674 million for the Department of State
• $70.8 million to the U.S. Forrest Service
• $20.6 million to the Department of Interior/Bureau of Reclamation

In each of these line-item expenditures, the bill's Democrat authors added language about the pandemic in a thinly veiled attempt to justify the mammoth spending on departments and agencies already funded through the annual Congressional budget.  More money equals bigger government.  

As egregious as funneling more money to the government sounds, there are flagrant examples of special interest pay-offs stuffed into the omnibus bill, which most members of Congress didn't have the time or the inclination to read.  As Speaker Pelosi once crowed, "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it."

Hold your nose while you read these excesses funded by your taxpaying dollars:

• $14.25 billion for colleges to make up for lost revenues 
• $75 million for Public Broadcasting
• $5 million for Railroad Retirement Board
• $4 billion for homeless assistance 
• $3 million for Forrest and Rangeland Research
• $12.5 million for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
• $7.5 million for the Smithsonian Institution 
• $25 million for the Kennedy Center, currently closed
• $75 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
• $75 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities
• $13 million for Howard University
• $7 million for Gallaudet University
• $800 million in additional foreign food aid
• $1.5 million for the Seaway International Bridge connecting New York to Canada
• $100 million on construction of an underground rail linking San Francisco to Silicon Valley
• $86 billion to bail out 185 multi-employer pension plans for unions and industry

If your stomach is churning and your blood pressure is spiking, you may want to stop reading unless you have 9-1-1 on your speed dial. The spending outlined to this point is just the tip of an Antarctica iceberg.  Listed below are more glaring examples of preposterous spending in the name of COVID.

• $30 billion in transit grants through fiscal year 2024
• $1.5 billion to Amtrak, already sitting on $1 billion in unspent aid from previous relief bills
• $3.5 billion for Child Care grants to states to assist child care providers
• $600 million for additional paid leave for federal employees and postal workers
• $15 billion for airline payroll support
• Payroll Protection Plan (PPP) for labor unions
• Allows stimulus checks for the 387,642 so-called Dreamers (DACA) residents 
• $34 billion for subsidies for insurance premiums, the largest expansion of Obamacare
• Grants stimulus checks to mixed immigration status families, including if one parent is an illegal immigrant 
• $130 billion to schools, even if they remain closed (This is on top of the $110 billion granted in the December stimulus bill.)
• $3 billion in aid to supplement payroll costs for some aircraft manufacturers
• $40 million for Student Aid administration
• $65 million for housing opportunities for persons with HIV/AIDS 

The Democrat legislation is chocked with sleights of hand to avoid blowback from voters.  For example, there is a $50 million line item for family planning.  There is no mention of the recipient. No doubt the bestowal of cash will flow into the coffers of Planned Parenthood.

However, every fact checker from Politico to Snopes dutifully points out Planned Parenthood is not specifically named in the bill.  The abortion and reproductive health organization will be required to send a proposal to apply for the funds, the fact-checkers claim.  This is cover-up to quell public outrage.

It is fair to point out there was pork in the previous spending bills, including the December stimulus which included $10 million for gender studies in Pakistan.  The difference is the legacy media made it a major part of its reporting.  Not so under Mr. Biden.  Now it camouflages the pork. 

This pork-wrapped-in-a-stimulus breakfast taco, is an insult to Americans' intelligence.  The media and Democrats believe taxpayers--that's you dear reader--are too brainless to see through the waste and deceitfulness.  They are counting on your not to notice their dishonesty and to remain mum. 

Helping out those who have lost jobs during the pandemic business lockdown is a noble cause.  That's what this stimulus bill should have addressed and little else. Americans need to confront their elected officials and give them an earful.  Tell them to keep the pork in the Swamp's pig sty.     

Biden Amnesty For How Many Illegal Immigrants?

A plan to legalize an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country is being hammered out by House Democrats. Nothing in the proposal addresses an accurate count of illegals in the U.S. or the inequity of the treatment for legal immigrants who wait years for citizenship.

The last time America paved the way for amnesty for immigrants living illegally in the country was 1986. The Immigration Reform and Control Act provided citizenship for three million non-citizens and made it illegal to hire undocumented immigrants while increasing funding for tightened border control.

Although the comprehensive details of the House bill are unknown, preliminary signs indicate the plan would provide illegal immigrants a five-year temporary citizenship status, after which they would be eligible to apply for a three-year green card and then citizenship following that period.  

When the topic of amnesty is raised, those who support the Biden plan virtually always cite the generally accepted figure of 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S. However, there is no official government data on how many non-citizens are residing in the country at this moment.

The 11 million figure has its origins in studies done by the non-partisan Pew Research Center as early as 2005.  In 2014, Pew raised the figure to 11.1 million, then lowered it to 10.5 million in its 2017 study.  Estimates are based on modeling data and Census Bureau studies. These are not facts but guesses.

Pew's figures are extrapolated from the Census Bureau's annual American Community survey, a  method used for at least three decades by most demographers.  Assuming the estimate is accurate, granting citizenship to 11 million individuals is the equivalent of adding a state the size of Georgia.

There are recent studies that cast doubt on the 11 million number. In fact, research based on new modeling techniques indicate the 11 million number is a gross underestimate. The number matters because these undocumented immigrants would be eligible for federal and other benefits.

Is the 11 million figure accurate?

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a non-partisan, public interest group, estimated there are approximately 14.3 million illegal immigrant residing in America.  Their estimate, using more sophisticated modeling than Pew Research, was published in 2019.

In 2018, the Migration Policy Institute released a study that found there were 19 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.  Nearly one-half of all undocumented immigrants live in three states (listed with percentage of nation's total): California, 24%; Texas, 16%; and New York, 8%.

A Yale School of Management study in 2018, employing yet another methodology, suggests the actual figure for the undocumented immigrant population may be more than 22 million. The Yale researchers used mathematical modeling on a wide range of demographic and immigration data.  

Even employing parameters aimed at producing an extremely conservative measurement, the Yale study placed the low end estimate of illegal immigrants at 16.7 million.  After running 1 million simulations of the model, the 95% probability range is 16-to-29 million with 22.1 million the mean. 

A Bear Stearns report issued in 2005 estimated there were 20 million illegal immigrants residing in the country, roughly the population of New York state.  Moreover, the analysts asserted between 12 and 15 million jobs in the country were held by illegal immigrants, representing 8% of the workforce.

Bottom line: the 11 million number is most likely off by millions.  For those who support amnesty, it improves chances of public support for their position to deliberately downplay the figure as well as the costs of adding millions to the citizenship rolls.

Whatever the accurate data, it is well to remember that those who receive amnesty could then sponsor the lawful immigration of family members who still live abroad.  According to federal records, each immigrant, on average, sponsors three-to-four additional family members for green cards.

A green card means the individual obtains permanent residence permission allowing the person to live and work in the U.S.  The immigrant still must go through the legal process to become a citizen.

If you believe the number is 22 million that theoretically means legalization could potentially open the door for 66-to-88 million immigrants. Of course, the U.S. establishes annual limits on immigration.  However, the Biden plan apparently includes increasing the ceiling to allow more immigration. 

In the debate over immigration, reformers point to an Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimate that illegal immigrants contribute $11.74 billion to state and local economies.  However, at least 26 states currently pay these immigrants benefits ranging from food assistance to healthcare.  

In Arizona, it adds up to about $1.6 billion annually in benefits. California and New York, two of the countries largest states, offer illegal immigrants healthcare access, food assistance and cash benefits.  Providing citizenship to millions of undocumented immigrants will hike federal and state benefit costs.

Undocumented immigrants, including 387,642 so-called DACA dreamers, are currently ineligible to receive most federal public benefits.

Legal Immigration Works, So How Do You Justify Citizenship For Illegals?

In the rush for amnesty, the media owes it to Americans to inform them our country has more legal immigrants than any country on Earth: 44.9 million.  That is the largest number of immigrants living in America since census record-keeping began. Since 1965, the number of immigrants has quadrupled.  

The next closest country is Germany with 12 million immigrants.  We are anything but a xenophobic nation.

Those 44.9 million legal immigrants waited an average of one to one-and-half years before becoming naturalized citizens.  The entire process, from gaining permission to enter the country to acquiring citizenship, can take from three to five years, according to government records.  

The 16-to-22 million undocumented  immigrants did not enter the country legally, a fact the media glosses over in its reporting about the Biden plan.  In effect, they will gain citizenship without the hardships and costs endured by those who played by the rules and immigrated legally to the U.S.

Another media tactic is to demagogue the illegal immigrant issue by raising the specter mass deportation. Legacy media conjures up images of millions of immigrants being frog-marched and sardined into buses and planes to be swiftly deported under the cover of darkness.

No one is proposing this, but it paints amnesty critics as heartless Neanderthals, a favorite Biden term.  

Legalizing current undocumented immigrants will not staunch the flow of illegals across the U.S.-Mexico border.  In 2018, Customs and Border Protection apprehended 369,579 people illegally crossing into the U.S. By 2019, the number had spiraled to 851,509.  It plummeted to 458,088 in 2020.

Last year the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau made 103,603 arrests of illegal immigrants.  Of those arrested, nine-in-ten had criminal convictions on their record.  Those immigrants had a total of more than 374,000 convictions and charges, an average of four per person.  

Immigration officials deported 185,000 migrants attempting to cross into the country illegally in 2020.  By comparison, during President Obama's eight-year tenure 1.5 million undocumented immigrants were deported, including a record 409,000 in 2012.  

Amnesty will encourage, not discourage, more illegal crossing. Thousands of Central Americana, including residents of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, have trekked through Mexico to reach the U.S. in the last five years.

Right now there are thousands more illegal immigrants clustered on the Mexico-U.S. border, wearing campaign-style tee shirts reading: "Biden: Please Let Us In!"  As soon as Mr. Biden nodded agreement to halt border-wall construction, illegal immigrants began flocking through the unfinished areas.  

The escalating influx, has spurred Mr. Biden to dispatch senior administration members to the border to report back on the situation. Leaked Health and Human Services documents show Customs and Border Protection is referring an average of 321 illegal immigrant children every day.

The promise of amnesty is exacerbating the problem at the border forcing law enforcement in Arizona and Texas to deal with this federal problem.  Amnesty acts as a magnet to lure increasing numbers of immigrants willing to breech the border to skulk into the U.S.   

Before Congress approves any amnesty plan, it should obtain an accurate count of undocumented immigrants in the country.  The federal budget agency also should be required to provide an estimate on the expected costs to states and American taxpayers of adding 16-to-22 million new citizens.

Republicans must insist the new law contain funding to continue to harden the U.S.-Mexico border to shut off the flow of illegals into our country.  If that isn't done, in another decade to two, the country will be considering yet another amnesty plan for more than 40 million undocumented immigrants.  

Lawmakers need all the facts before they take a vote on the Biden plan.  Those who argue it is too difficult to get the data are making an excuse to avoid finding the truth. Lack of transparency breaks faith with all Americans, especially those 44.9 million immigrants who entered the country legally.   

America's Version of Ethnic Cleansing

Ethnic cleansing, an attempt to rid a society of unwanted groups, is being appropriated and redefined by leftists to purge the nation of conservatives, Republicans or any American who opposes progressive orthodoxies. To achieve their goal, the plotters are muzzling free speech through systemic censorship.  

The Capitol riot emboldened virtually every social media platform to ban Mr. Trump and a host of his allies, including MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, lawyer Sidney Powell and retired General Michael Flynn. Then conservatives fled to newly-hatched platform Parler, with 15 million users.

Big Tech fumed, determined to bring Parler under its jackboot.

Goggle and Apple jerked Parler from their app stores. A day later, Amazon severed its contract to host Parler on its cloud computing servers. Parler lodged an antitrust lawsuit against Amazon. Coincidentally after the filing, Parler reopened its platform, albeit with technical difficulties and fewer accounts.

Tech monopolists, however, are guilty of double standards.  Antifa used Twitter to stoke riots in cities during the summer.  Twitter has allowed violent hashtags like #KillDonaldTrump and #HangMikePence. Russian dissident Alexei Navalny tweeted about the hypocrisy: 

"I get death threats here (on Twitter) every day for many years, and Twitter doesn't ban anyone."

The assault on free speech spread like a contagion to individuals and groups considered dissidents.  LifeSiteNews, a pro-life group, was banned from YouTube.  One of the reasons: The organization posted a "subversive" video entitled, "Catholic Christian Traditions to Instill Faith in Your Kids." 

More than 70,000 accounts on Twitter were expunged in a single day. The social media censors at Twitter claimed the accounts were linked to QAnon, a "far right, extremist conspiracy" group.  Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was banned without explanation from Facebook for anti-vaccine "conspiracy" theories. 

Project Veritas was permanently removed from Twitter and YouTube. The social platforms labeled the news group "far right extremists." ProjectVeritas exposed some of the more heinous practices of Planned Parenthood in undercover videos.  In the current environment, that is considered "dangerous." 

Amazon purged conservative scholar Ryan Anderson's 2018 book, "When Harry Became Sally" from its online bookstore because it challenges progressive ideas about gender.  In particular, the book questions the wisdom of sex change procedures in children. Can book burnings be far behind?

Publisher Simon and Schuster cancelled a book deal by Trump ally Senator Josh Hawley, tying their decision to the "insurrection" in Washington.  America's disinformation media cheered the censorship, despite the protections the press enjoys under the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

Liberal-funded activist organizations painted a bullseye on Fox News, hectoring advertisers to abandon the conservative media outlet or face retribution.  In response, Fox let go (a corporate euphemism for "fire") several of its long-time news hosts for their on-air support of former President Trump.

Censorship storm troopers, masquerading as members of Congress, took aim at other news providers and streaming platforms.  Democrat Representatives Anna G. Eshoo and Jerry McNerney of California wrote a chilling letter to these firms about the "spread of dangerous disinformation."

The letter brazenly inquired: "Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News, OANN and Newsmax on your platform now and beyond the renewal date.  If so, why?" This was no polite request but a shakedown of those outlets offering carriage to conservative news outlets.

Firms receiving the demagogic warning included Comcast, AT&T, Spectrum, Dish, Verizon, Cox, Roku, Amazon, Apple, Goggle and Hulu. The letter was sent in advance of a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on "Fanning the Flames: Disinformation and Extremism in the Media."

Partisan media dismissed Republicans' complaints about censorship by dutifully reporting Democrat talking points. "There is no evidence of any bias," Democrat Rep. David Cicilline huffed.  "The evidence is anecdotal so far, we don't operate on anecdotes, we operate on facts and data."

No offense, Rep Cicilline, but wrench your head out of the sand and look at the censorship facts. 

Media sycophants dredged up a New Your University report from its Stern Center For Business dismissing conservative claims of bias as a "falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it." This was an effort to deflect criticism of censorship and support the censors.  

If you read the NYU study, you will find the report bases its conclusion on the fact that conservatives still dominate many social platforms. That ignores the fact that hundreds and perhaps thousands of conservatives have been booted off for alleged violations of often vague rules applied unevenly.  

Many constitutional lawyers confirm Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms have no First Amendment obligation to protect freedom of speech. The amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from abridging freedom of speech. Private firms are under no such constraint.

However, Twitter and Facebook have become so pervasive they are essentially the public square for Americans to air their views. Facebook and Twitter have 75% of the social media market. Shutting off differing viewpoints turns the platforms into propaganda outlets for progressive ideology.

Never in America's history, including during the era of McCarthyism, has the country witnessed such an orchestrated plot to extinguish speech that offends the ruling government.  This sort of censorship is a central pillar of China's war on truth, which allows the Communist Party to control its people.  

Taking a page from China's strategy, Big Tech monopolists are erasing any speech about voter fraud during the 2020 election. Their reaction reeks of hypocrisy.  For nearly four years, social and news media granted free reign to false claims Mr. Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election. 

As censorship blitzkrieg escalated, the House of Representatives under the iron fisted control of Speaker Nancy Pelosi released a memorandum which read in part: 

"Despite criticism, many traditional media outlets continue to allow for disinformation in an attempt to follow journalistic standards and present multiple viewpoints on a story." 

The message is clear to the news media: "Your news coverage better follow the progressive narrative and support our orthodoxy or we will silence you.  Stick to one viewpoint.  Ours.  Is that clear?"  Regardless of political affiliation, all Americans should be terrified by this threat to a free press. 

Mirroring China's tactics, the anarchists are using government propaganda to support censorship.  The decision after January 6 to erect a barrier around the Capitol was calculated to reenforce the propaganda of an America under unrelenting attack from domestic terrorists. 

A seven-foot, non-scalable, fence topped with concertina razor wire was hastily thrown up around the Capitol days after the riot. Concrete barricades were erected. More than 1,000 heavily-armed National Guard troops were summoned to man the ramparts.  This is optical propaganda.  

The nation's Capitol today resembles a third-world government fortress.  The pretext used to justify the bastille-like facade is to prevent another insurrection, according to law enforcement. More than a month has lapsed with no sign of trouble. Even some Democrats are embarrassed by the optics.

"I believe we can keep members, press, staff, my constituents, and all those who work here safe without walling off the symbol of our democracy.  It's the People's House--let's keep it that way," tweeted Virginia Democrat congresswoman Jennifer Wexton.

The country is entering a new and dangerous era where the definition of free speech is now "approved speech."  Progressive insurgents, a handful of Big Tech oligarchs and a cabal of media elitists are determining what is "disinformation" by their standards. This is a tactic of every global despot.  

Silencing public speech is unAmerican.  Regardless of your political affiliation, the current scheme to control all forms of communication, should be frightening.  Benjamin Franklin, one of America's founding fathers and a fierce advocate of democracy, once cautioned:

"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."

America ignores his warning at its own peril.  

No political party, tech company or activist group should be sanctioned to curb freedom of expression, even if it clashes with the prevailing dogma, Woke tenets or some political catechism.  Once Americans lose free speech, our democracy will disintegrate, replaced by a totalitarian government.   

Winter Blackout Deals Texas Utilities A Black Eye

Snow began strafing Texas a week ago, creating a winter wonderland. Texans rushed outdoors to enjoy a frosty adventure.  However, their glee quickly turned into a nightmare as the state's power grid suffered an epic meltdown, plunging Texas into darkness.

At the apex of the blackout, more than 4.5 million Texas households were without electricity in bone-chilling, sub-freezing temperatures. For an energy rich state, it dealt a humiliating blow to Texas' image. Liberal media, such as The Washington Post, mocked Texas and blamed Republican leadership.

In the midst of the Apocalypse, the state's electric grid operator and city-owned power companies neared collapse as an historic, unrelenting Arctic storm camped over Texas. Instead of admitting failure, the state's grid operator and local utility companies dodged responsibility for the blackout.

Electric industry executives blamed the unanticipated, fierce storm for their lack of preparedness. To make matters worse, they faulted customers for turning up thermostats during the cold snap in an effort to deflect criticism of their own mismanagement, while practicing dreadful public relations. 

To find out what happened, here is a snapshot of the grid operator and its key players:

The state's grid operator, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), was thrust into the spotlight overnight.  Few Texans know about ERCOT, a not-for-profit (501 (c) 4) entrusted with managing 46,500 miles of transmission lines and more than 650 electric generation units. 

ERCOT supervises the flow of power on its grid, funneling electricity to 26 million customers, representing 90 percent of the state.  El Paso and parts of East Texas and the upper Panhandle are on another grid. During peak demand periods, ERCOT orders utilities to reserve or ration power.   

The news media failed to make it clear that ERCOT neither owns, maintains nor operates any electric generation.  Electric utilities, primarily private firms, but also electric cooperatives and city-owned firms, do the heavy lifting. These utilities are responsible for generation, transmission and maintenance.

The most relevant starting point for the blackout fiasco is Bill Magness, the president and CEO of ERCOT, charged with managing the grid.  Magness has no electric industry operational experience.  He is an attorney who once served on the Texas Public Utility Commission.

Magness answers to the ERCOT board, which consists of 25 members who are either consumers, representatives of the utilities, power suppliers or independent outsiders. Texans were outraged when word leaked that at least five key board members do not even live in Texas.

Sally Talberg, chairwoman of the board of directors, is a former state utility regulator who resides in Michigan, according to the ERCOT website.  Vice Chairman Peter Cramton is a professor of economics at the University of Cologne in Germany, but lists his residence as Del Mar, California. 

Board member Vanessa Anesetti-Parra serves as vice president of regulatory and compliance at JustEnergy and posts her address as Toronto.  After this became public, ERCOT abruptly erased this information from its website, contending board members received threats.  

Governor Gregg Abbott called for the firing of the board over the blackout.  But the state's chief executive has no authority to either hire or fire directors.  In a cozy arrangement, ERCOT's board appoints a nominating committee of current members to fill vacancies and determine board tenure.

ERCOT is nominally regulated by the Public Utility Commission and overseen by the Texas legislature. But that oversight has been at best lenient or at worse negligent. ERCOT, as well as its regulator and state lawmakers, have a lot of explaining to do to angry Texans, who suffered through the blackout.

Now let's turn to the criticisms of the Texas electricity model.

Outsiders and the the media pinned blame for the blackout on Texas' decision to operate an independent, single-state grid.  The lower 48 states are part of one of two giant synchronous grids, the Eastern Interconnection and the Western Interconnection, both run by not-for-profit boards.

The insinuation is that if Texas was connected to one of those extensive grids, it could tap spare capacity from other utilities during peak demand.  It is an appealing theory, but California is a member of the Western Interconnection, yet endures regular rolling blackouts during unusually hot summers.

When a grid is overwhelmed with demand, there is little or no excess power to shift from one city to another.  All grids experience blackouts.  One of the best known occurred in 2003 when a mammoth grid stumbled, blacking out large swaths of the Northeastern and Midwestern United States.

A media narrative also hoisted by liberal sources laid responsibility for the blackout on Texas' decision two decades ago to de-regulate the energy market.  Critics contend deregulation emphasized cheap electricity prices at the expense of reliable service.  That cheap shot tells only one side of the story.

Under Texas' free market model, more than 300 retail electric outlets offer service to Texas customers. Deregulation has actually spurred investment, especially by manufacturers of electricity. Since 2001, electric generation in Texas has soared nearly 30%. That is three times the growth rate nationwide, reports the U.S. Energy Information Administration. 

In 2019, Texas generated twice as much power as Florida, the state in second place. Electric rates also plummeted under deregulation. Average electric rates nationwide are about 26% higher than in Texas. Low rates have fueled an influx of businesses and jobs from high-cost states, like California.

From 1999 to 2015, power firms in Texas constructed 50,000 megawatts of new generation, enough to power 10 million homes during peak demand.  In addition, investment has been plowed into wind and solar, ushering in new green energy sources online. Deregulation facilitated those investments.

For those who pine for a return to a heavily-regulated, monopoly system, heed this assessment of its potential chilling impact on investment in power generation: 

"A single rate case takes six to nine months in some regulated states, so it would have taken forever," says Bruce Bullock director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University.  "And the price would be exorbitant."  Those investment costs would be passed along to ratepayers.

Those who bash Texas for a single grid and deregulation are well advised to consider all the facts, not just the half-truths circulated by the media and some partisans trying to politicize the blackout. The deployment of a single grid and the introduction of deregulation did not trigger the blackout.  That is a fact.

So what crashed the electric system, causing the colossal blackout?

The chief mission of operators like ERCOT is to prevent a cascading series of blackouts that would  collapse the electric grid. Once that happens, restoration takes weeks or months. By that standard, ERCOT did its job. However, that does not absolve ERCOT of any responsibility.  

ERCOT cannot escape blame in two areas: the most damaging blunder was to recommend, rather than insist, that Texas utility operators invest to winter-proof their generation facilities. Magness and others should have gone to the Public Utility Commission and the legislature with the issue.

In addition, ERCOT tried to soft-peddle the dereliction on the part of its member utilities.

As an example, here is Magness in a television interview on a Dallas station: "...We saw real improvements in the winterization of Texas power plants in the last several years.  The last time we had rotating outages was back in 2011. We've seen a lot of progress."   

That sound bite does not jibe with the reality on the ground. Wind turbines froze because of lack of winterization, knocking the facilities offline.  Wind generates 17.4% of the state's energy, not the 10% widely reported in the media. A few turbines operated during the blackout, but the majority failed.

As temperatures nosedived into single digit territory, gas pipelines froze because of moisture in the gas. Pumps stalled.  Backup diesel engines powering the pumps went silent.  One power plant after another ground to a halt.  A single reactor at one of the state's two nuclear plants fizzled after equipment froze.

According to ERCOT, frozen gauges and instruments at natural gas, coal and nuclear plants were the major culprit sparking the failure of power facilities.  To exacerbate the situation, some natural gas producers in Texas were selling supply to utilities outside the state instead of to home-grown utilities.

On February 16, ERCOT reported that 87% of total power shortages were from outages at natural gas and coal generators. About 13% of the outages were attributed to wind turbine failures.  An estimated 46,000 megawatts of power generation was lost, enough to power nearly 9 million households.   

Neither ERCOT nor the state's utilities can legitimately claim they were not warned about the need to winterize.  After the 2011 massive power outage in Texas, a 357-page investigative report cited the lack of winterization in too many critical generators across the state as the cause of the disaster.

The report was issued by the Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which set reliability standards for electric grids.  The study recommended more insulation for facilities, heated pipes and increased energy reserve.

After the report landed on the desks of electric industry executives, heads nodded and a few meetings were held to discuss the recommendations.  But little else was done. 

According to an estimate from the FERC, the cost to winter-proof a natural gas well is more than $34,000.  At the end of 2019, Texas had over 122,000 gas wells.  The cost would top $4 billion.  It is uneconomic to invest that much capital in a single year and most firms lack the financial resources.  

However, since 2011, the energy suppliers and gas producers had a full decade to spread those investments, ameliorating the hit to firms' bottom lines. Instead, they nipped at the edges, making a few changes, but avoiding the big ticket items, while ignoring the advice of the report.

As the storm barreled into Texas, ERCOT cautioned of the need for rolling blackout to maintain grid integrity. Indeed, there were some cities that experienced rolling blackouts, where electricity came on for 30 minutes or an hour, then was shut down to conserve energy.

The lower temperatures dropped the higher customer demand rose. At one point, the grid was near disintegration when 185 of the state's 650 generators went offline, sometimes multiple times.  ERCOT generation sank to 40% of capacity as the Ice Age descended. It's reserve margin of 12.6% evaporated.  

In its role as grid operator, ERCOT essentially tells utilities how much power they can distribute and how much they need to hold in reserve to prevent the entire system from cratering. Utility companies in turn decide which businesses and neighborhoods receive electricity and which don't.  It's that simple.

Now here's an examination of one local utility's performance during the life-threatening storm.

A least one large city, San Antonio, was smothered in total darkness instead of a rolling blackouts. CPS Energy, the state's largest city-owned utility, hedged in its public communications. CPS President and CEO Paula Gold-Williams initially warned residents of rolling blackouts as demand sharply spiked. 

After insisting the blackouts were rolling, Gold-Williams was forced to admit the city was experiencing a total loss of power.  Later she told a local television station the blackouts were only for three hours at a time.  This was a falsehood but it was never challenged by the pliant local media.

In fact, the blackout durations were for 34 hours in parts of San Antonio until power was restored for six hours.  Before residents could celebrate, the electricity snapped again only to return like Lazarus from the dead 30 hours later. Residents shivered in sub-freezing temperatures in their homes.

Yet small, mostly affluent enclaves in the city were spared a blackout.  Also a flood of lights blazed in downtown SA, including at the mostly vacant CPS offices. Asked to explain the inconsistency, Gold-Williams offered this clarification:

The suburban areas were on the same electrical supply source as critical fire departments, police facilities and hospitals, sparing those households of the misery others felt.  Under intense heat, Ms. Gold Williams had the CPS office lights dimmed a day later to avoid a further public relations disaster.

This was just the beginning of what turned out to be CPS' worst catastrophe in many years.  One of the company's gas power plants was offline when the customer demand skyrocketed.  The plant had been shuttered for maintenance, which takes an average of 30 days. That reduced CPS' power capacity. 

As the crisis deepened, the CPS chief ordered staff to intentionally cut off power to some of the San Antonio Systems (SAWS)  pump stations, throwing a double-whammy at citizens.  Not only were many shivering in their homes and apartments, but now they had no water either.

CPS attempted to soften the public relations blow by telling the media only an estimated 30% of its customers lacked water.  Small consolation to those without power and water.  Even customers with a supply of water were advised to boil drinking water because of the risk of contaminants in the system.

Some of those downed circuits impacted water pump stations CPS had deemed critical, which means under even extreme circumstances, the facilities are to be protected.  "As the crisis got worse, we, in turn, had to hit some of those critical circuits," Gold-Williams admitted. 

The CPS executive's revelations increased the public fury, especially when she initially tried to fend off blame by declaring the Arctic burst could not have been anticipated.  That was laughable because local meteorologists had predicted the cruel weather two weeks prior to its crash landing in San Antonio.

With storm roaring through Texas, CPS gave no warning to its customers so they could prepare for what was almost certainly a loss of power.  Once the weather system slammed into Texas, CPS did little to communicate directly with customers on when or how electricity would be restored. 

The next shock wave to smack Texas: Soaring customer bills.

As the deep freeze subsided last weekend, some Texans faced the prospect of even more grim news: the shock of super-sized electric bills. 

Some of the state's electric retailers were forced to purchase wholesale power to keep power trudging to customer homes and apartments.  Wholesale prices rocketed from a seasonal average of $50 per megawatt hour to more than $9,000.

A Reliant Energy Customer in Mansfield told NBC News she typically pays $63 per month the electric bill for her one-bedroom apartment. Her bill is projected to between $114 and $133, according to estimates provided by the utility.

Within hours of the storm's arrival, the Public Utility Commission held an emergency meeting where officials approved an order that would adjust energy prices statewide. The following is a part of the order:

"Energy prices should reflect scarcity of the supply. If customer load is being shed, scarcity is at its maximum, and the market price of the energy needed to serve that load should also be at its highest."

That is government gobbledygook for:  Expect sticker shock when you get your next electric bill.

Some lessons learned in this year's once-in-a-century winter storm.

Texas utilities deferred capital investments for winter-proofing its generating facilities and paid the price during the storm.  Technically, customers will pay the price.  But continuing to ignore winterization will lead to more statewide blackouts that could crush the grid, prompting a months-long power outage.

ERCOT has operated in anonymity for too long.  The grid operator needs to be more transparent.  If ERCOT will be held responsible for grid failures, then it must also have the authority, with consent of the PUC, to require critical changes by its member utilities regarding generation, transmission and maintenance. 

Finally, Texas utilities should continue to increase power capacity as the state's population growth spirals.  Green energy has proven cost-effective and deserves to be expanded.  Additionally, more investment in other forms of energy are required to support mushrooming demand.

If Texas wants to restore its image as an energy state, the top imperative is to learn from the failures of this storm.  Repeating the same mistakes will only ensure another calamity that might jeopardize not only its reputation but the future growth of Texas.

News and Social Media Sabotaging Vaccinations

Even as more Americans roll up their sleeves for life-saving COVID-19 vaccinations, suspicions fueled by the news media and misleading information on social media sites are causing many to skip the shot. Public skepticism is endangering America's effort to beat a menacing, year-long pandemic.

Worries over the safety, the "rushed" nature of the pharmaceutical development and politicization of the vaccines are behind the public reluctance to be vaccinated.  Online conspiracies are spiraling out of control even as millions of vials of the vaccines are dispatched to every state.  

In little more than a month, 59.3 million dosages of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines have been dispatched. States have struggled to administer 42.1 million shots, despite months of lead time to develop public health plans.  A total of 9.1 million Americans have received the required two dosages.

While the snail's pace is unsettling, the more vexing issue is the public mistrust, apathy and even hostility toward promising vaccines that will end America's lockdown nightmare.  This anti-vaccine drumbeat is at odds with fatality statistics: More than 2 million worldwide and 460,000 in the U.S.

Pew Researchers tracked mushrooming apprehension among Americans.  In May, a Pew survey showed 27% of Americans would decline a COVID vaccination.  By November, that number had surged to 39%.  Polls indicate many are adopting a wait-and-see attitude to judge the vaccine's safety.

Speeding up the distribution and inoculation process will not halt the pandemic if four-in-10 adults are unwilling to be vaccinated.  Health experts believe that a vaccination rate of 75%-to-80% of Americans could potentially allow the country to achieve herd immunity later this year.

"By the time we get into fall, we can start approaching some degree of relief where the level of infection will be so low in society we can start essentially approaching some form of normality," says Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

His encouraging assessment has failed to motivate many Americans to bare their arms for a vaccination.  Here are just a few examples of what is happening across the country:

• Center for Disease Control (CDC) statistics document that only 37.5% of skilled staff at nursing homes are agreeing to be vaccinated.  The CDC reviewed data from 11,000 nursing facilities.
• Public records in Los Angeles show that between 20% to 40% of all frontline health workers refused to be vaccinated.
• In December about 60% of nursing home staff in Ohio declined to take the vaccines.  The state's governor expressed alarm at the statistics.
• The director of the United Memorial Medical Center in Houston publicly complained about the resistance from staff to take the vaccine.  About 50% of nurses are choosing not to be vaccinated.
• The New York City Firefighters are balking at being vaccinated. More than half of the 2,000 members of the Firefighters Association say they will not take a shot.

When frontline health workers and nursing home staff turn thumbs down on being vaccinated, it sends the wrong signal to average Americans.  They rightly wonder: If people in the health care profession reject the vaccines, they must know something is wrong with the safety and efficacy of the shots.

Cynicism over the vaccine unfolded even before the first vaccines were approved.  Democrats complained former President Trump was "rushing" the scientific development of a vaccine for political reasons. There are many examples that could be cited, but here's just one:

"We are all praying for a safe and effective vaccine as soon as possible, but the damage of the Trump Administration rushing a vaccine before it is known to be safe and effective could be catastrophic," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a public statement issued October 6.

Throughout the presidential campaign, a Democrat theme was to raise alarm about the administration's handling of the pandemic and to dismiss the promise of vaccines to eradicate the virus.  The media echoed that narrative and deliberately downplayed the advance of science on the vaccine front.    

A new National Bureau of Economic Study of news coverage found a striking difference in the way the U.S. media covered the pandemic compared to journalists in other countries.  A staggering 91% of stories by major news outlets were negative versus 54% in non-U.S. media.  

The study, published by Dartmouth College and Brown University scholars, analyzed more than 20,000 news reports from 15 top U.S. media outlets and 39 international sources.  Among their discoveries was the way the media dismissed the likelihood of having a successful vaccine.

The authors noted that a vaccine was mentioned in 1,371 stories during the period while researchers found 8,756 print and broadcast reports involving Mr. Trump not wearing a mask and 1,636 mentions of the former president's endorsement of hydroxycholroquine. 

Some still want to pin the blame on President Trump.  But Mr. Trump touted the vaccines.  Vice President Mike Pence and members of both the Trump and Biden Administrations were shown receiving vaccinations to tamp down any speculation that the vaccines were unsafe.

Today every instance of someone experiencing a negative reaction to the vaccine is covered by the media in alarmist tones.  When a Democrat congressman tested positive after receiving two dosages of the vaccine, it erupted into a national news story.  Negative news about the vaccines stokes fear.     

Social media has been a sewer of conspiracy theories about the vaccine.  Some of the claims: The needle used to vaccinate people has a microchip with the mark of the Beast; vaccines alter your DNA; vaccines contain a microbe that tracks you; and the vaccines cause COVID. 

Ironically, social media platforms are removing what they consider "violent" content posted by conservatives, but allow conspiratorial scams to fester online, which sow the seeds of distrust for the vaccines and allow disinformation to spread unchecked.      

The damage already done to the public's perceptions will require a massive educational campaign by the health and medical community. It will be a long slog.  However, if it is not done quickly, there is very little light at the end of a long and deadly tunnel.   

Washington Swamp Awash In Lobbyists Cash

If money is the root of all evil, then the U.S. Capitol is Beelzebub. More than $63 billion has been legally funneled to the 484 members of Congress in the last ten years.  That works out to $130.1 million per Senator and House Representative over that period. The horde of cash is courtesy of lobbyists.  

At last count, there were 11,862 registered lobbyists showering their attention and wealth on those 484 lawmakers. That's 24 lobbyists per member.  Lobbying is not inherently corrupt, but the sums of money lavished on Senators and Representatives certainly buys not only access but influence.

Statistics cited above were culled from reports by the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent, non-partisan, not-for-profit, that researches and tracks money and politics in America and its impact on elections and public policies. The center's researchers have access to federal lobbying reports.

The Lobbying Disclosure Act requires lobbyists to register with the federal government and to report expenditures in a timely manner. But there are loopholes. Businesses or organizations employing in-house lobbyists are exempt from registration if the total expenses do not exceed $13,000 quarterly.

Lobbyists who devote less than 20% of their time to a single client are not required to register or file disclosures. Those are just a few examples of the loopholes that promote unethical lobbying conduct. Most of it goes undetected because of weak enforcement.

There is little transparency since disclosure reports are lodged with the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Secretary to the U.S. Senate. This is the proverbial wolf guarding the chicken coop. This cozy relationship results in lax reporting as well as questionable financial accuracy. 

Lobbyists use campaign contributions, fund raisers, paid speech opportunities and other means to gain a foot in the door with lawmakers.  And it is perfectly legal.Today's campaigns costs millions of dollars and senators and representatives are constantly scrambling for money to stash in their reelection coffers.

By one estimate, a candidate for Senate on average must raise more than $14,000 per day, seven days a week to win reelection.  It is a little cheaper for a House seat.  A sitting representative needs to raise an average of $1.5 million for campaigning.  It may sound cynical, but it's the way the system works.

Lobbyists use their influence with lawmakers to leverage national policymaking by swamping their often undermanned, inexperienced and overworked staffers with information and data to help shape legislation passed by the Senate and House.  

As legislation is drafted, lobbyists often review proposals and prepare recommendations for language and technical specifications to advantage their clients.  Those suggestions are filtered through Congressional staffs, who write legislation for their bosses. Lawmakers don't write bills. Staffs do.

A sentence or two inserted in a bill by a lobbyist can mean millions of dollars in tax savings or increased government funding for a client. For every dollar businesses and associations spend lobbying, they get an average $760 in federal support and tax savings in return for their clients.  

The Brookings Institute estimates between two-thirds and three-quarters all money spent on lobbying is done on behalf of business firms.  Name a large industry or a mammoth company and you are sure to find their names on federal reports on lobbying costs.

In 2020, OpenSecrets found that the U.S. Chamber, which represents most large corporations, doled out $59.3 million on lobbying.  Other big spenders: Associations of Relators, $58.5 million; Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers, $20.7 million; and American Hospital Association, $18.2 million.

Big Tech also was among those piping cash to Washington.  Facebook doled out $14.9 million and Amazon tallied $13.7 million in lobbying costs.  Although Democrats portray the National Rifle Association (NRA) as a big-spending bogeyman, the group's lobbying expenses were $3.2 million.

Lobbyists not only offer cash.  Some strike quid-pro-quo deals with lawmakers for future employment in mutli-million dollar positions at their firms.  About 50% of senators and 42% of representatives snap up lobbying gigs after leaving Congress, reports RepresentUs, a grassroots anti-corruption group.

Some lawmakers end up as in-house lobbyists for corporations. Others are hired by trade associations anxious to increase their visibility in Congress.  A few land a position in the administration of a president. It is an endless revolving door where ex-members snag plum jobs for past favors.

Sound corrupt?  That is a rhetorical question.  

Throw into this mix  billions of dollars in foreign lobbying by U.S. firms and the financial stakes are raised even higher.  Foreign organizations and governments spent more than $3 billion on lobbying between 2016-2020, according to OpenSecrets.

U.S. lobbyists operating on behalf of foreign agents usually focus their efforts on tourism, trade and advocacy for policy positions. Their job includes regularly interfacing with members of Congress on not only those issues but others of special interest.  

The Sunlight Foundation and ProPublica scrutinized foreign reporting data for 2008 and uncovered extensive "political and quasi-political" lobbying of Congress.  Lobbyists for foreign agents hauled in $85 million in fees in 2008 and contacted Congressional offices more than 10,700 times.

Since 2016, Russia has spent $40.7 million on lobby efforts; Qatar, $32.9 million; China, $30.8 million; Japan, $23.9 million; South Korea, $22.6 million; Bahamas, $20.2 million; Marshall Islands, $15.9 million; and United Arab Emirates, $12.5 million.  

Recently filed disclosure records indicate Venezuela's socialist government engaged a Washington law firm to lobby against the U.S. effort to impose sanctions on the oil rich nation.  A subsidiary of Venezuela's state oil company paid $6 million in 2017.  The report was filed only last week.

How to stop this madness?  One step is to prevent politicians from taking money from special interests they regulate.  Another is to slam shut the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms.  A third is to limit lobbyists donations and halt lobbyist-backed fund raising.

Most importantly, Congress needs to scrap the current system of the reporting of lobbyists financial disclosures to itself.  The information should be filed with an independent watchdog agency that has the authority to audit the disclosures and levy stiff fines for non-compliance.     

When can you expect these changes? Never.  It's in the best financial interests of members of Congress to maintain the current system with all its loopholes and opaqueness. The Swamp will remain as dirty as ever.  That may sound cynical but there appears little enthusiasm for drainage.